For several years scholars pointed at the development of a “participatory turn” in science, technology and innovation (STI). Decisively informed by STS, “public involvement” and then “public engagement” ... [more ▼]

For several years scholars pointed at the development of a “participatory turn” in science, technology and innovation (STI). Decisively informed by STS, “public involvement” and then “public engagement” with STI have been enacted in a broad array of participatory experiments across Europe. These experiments were usually informed by rhetoric of citizen empowerment and distributed governance, against the limitations of technocratic approaches and traditional innovation processes, in order to “enrich”, “deepen”, “broaden” the knowledge base of our democracies. As “embarked researchers”, STS scholars played a crucial role in facilitating and legitimizing the organization of participatory events engaging a variety of publics. This paper will rely on the knowledge and expertise we gathered when organizing multiple participatory events over the last decade, while still trying maintain a critical distance with regard to our own engagement and the types of participation we contributed to enact. More specifically, we propose to draw on the lessons learnt from two recent projects, the organization of a citizens’ summit (Europe Wide Views on Sustainable Consumption) and a prospective study to gauge the potential of involving users in a Living Lab in the health sector in Wallonia. These two projects produced different publics (“citizens-consumers” or “users”), were informed by different political rationales (“sustainability” or “inclusive innovation”), took place in diverse settings (a European FP7 project or a project funded by the Walloon Region) and connected to several narratives of public empowerment through participation (“being heard in policymaking” or “accelerating and improving health”). Our contribution maps and compares the different instrumental and strategic framings of the engagement of publics in those two projects, emphasizing the roles attributed to fabricated publics but also the construction of categories such as the “state” and the “economy”. It unpacks some critical issues related to the methods and techniques used in the concrete implementation of participatory exercises such as, for example, the relation between the assigned tasks, the allowed forms of dialogue between the participants, the room for engagement with the issue(s) at stake and the broader understanding of processes these inputs were supposed to contribute to. Our analysis highlights a tension between the justificatory rationales for public engagement and its specific enactments. In these fast and optimized exercises, participants and their inputs become resources that need to be methodologically maximized and from which “value” may be extracted for instrumental use, i.e. innovation or policy-making. In this configuration in which, we argue, most participation experiments are stuck, the increasing involvement of publics in either policy-making or innovation will only be likely to produce low risk and high gain for powerful actors, who manage to take the best advantage of unpaid and uncritical labour from participants. Due attention (including self-reflexive critique) will be paid to alternative framings and critical insights, which were methodologically eliminated or ‘tamed’ to avoid threatening the design of the overall participatory exercise. By externalizing critique to favour unconditional compliance with imposed notions of the “greater good”, we scrutinize the risk for participation to become a mere space of experimentation for the sake of innovation and economic growth. Furthermore, we argue that critical scholarly work should help to move beyond this particular division of labour and responsibilities between the spheres of science, society and the state in order to avoid re-enacting traditional conceptions of the policy-making process and innovation pathways. [less ▲]

Initially developed to bridge the gap between research and market, a Living Lab can be described as an open, innovative and collaborative process based on three core characteristics: user involvement in ... [more ▼]

Initially developed to bridge the gap between research and market, a Living Lab can be described as an open, innovative and collaborative process based on three core characteristics: user involvement in the innovation process, experimentation in real-life context and the gathering of stakeholders in public-private-people partnerships. The paper focuses on user involvement and provides an insight on how this principle is put in practice, through the qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with twenty Living Labs in Europe and Canada. Our results interestingly point out that practice of user-driven approach, unlike what is promoted in Living Lab theory, is rather limited. Indeed, many Living Labs do not involve users for the ideation phase at all, and those ones usually use a user-centered approach for the following steps. Besides, when observed, user-driven approach is often restricted to the ideation phase. We can though ask ourselves the question of what is, or should be, living in a Living Lab? Furthermore, our results suggest that a user-driven approach seems more suitable when a Living Lab aims to create social value than when its objective is to create economic value. [less ▲]

Generally considered at an intra-organisational level, ambidexterity can also be found at inter-organisational level where organisations decide to collaborate by sharing between them activities of ... [more ▼]

Generally considered at an intra-organisational level, ambidexterity can also be found at inter-organisational level where organisations decide to collaborate by sharing between them activities of exploration and exploitation, according to their core competence. In this paper, we examine these collaborations, which are often presented as win-win solutions. In two case studies of R&D partnerships receiving public financing, we show the tensions that run through these alliances and the controversies that set the partners against each other. Our analysis, based on the actor-network theory, indicates that the conditions for successful inter-organisational ambidexterity do not exist a priori. The success of a partnership rather relies on a continuous translation process creating the convergence between the parties involved. [less ▲]

Generally conceptualized at an intra-organizational level, ambidexterity can also appear at an inter-organizational level when organizations decide to collaborate and distribute activities of exploration ... [more ▼]

Generally conceptualized at an intra-organizational level, ambidexterity can also appear at an inter-organizational level when organizations decide to collaborate and distribute activities of exploration and activities of exploitation according to their specialty. In this paper, we investigate these collaborations, often presented as win-win solutions. On the basis of two case studies of R&D partnerships benefiting from regional subsidies, we show the tensions which cross these alliances and the controversies which divide the partners. Our analysis, based on actor-network theory, indicates that the conditions of a successful inter-organizational ambidexterity do not exist a priori. The success of the partnership rather rests on a continuous translation process creating the convergence between the stakeholders. [less ▲]

In recent years, the promotion of R&D partnerships between universities, research labs and companies has become a key feature of innovation and development public policies. However, these collaborations ... [more ▼]

In recent years, the promotion of R&D partnerships between universities, research labs and companies has become a key feature of innovation and development public policies. However, these collaborations turn out to be fragile and their management very complex. In our literature review, the congruence between the nature of innovations (i.e. their radicalness) and the cooperation practices appears as a potentially powerful explanatory factor of interfirm innovation project’s outcome. Following this hypothesis, we explore, on two case studies of projects subsidized by the Walloon Competitive Clusters program, the way actors innovate and organize their actions. Though they face similar constraints, these projects illustrate diverse configurations, not only as to the nature of innovations but also as to cooperation practices. Besides, the analysis reveals that the criteria used to characterize the nature of innovations do not necessarily form a homogeneous set of factors. Considering these observations, we try to identify the main challenges faced by both projects’ partners. [less ▲]

In recent years, the promotion of R&D partnerships between universities, research labs and companies has become a key feature of innovation and development public policies. However, these collaborations ... [more ▼]

In recent years, the promotion of R&D partnerships between universities, research labs and companies has become a key feature of innovation and development public policies. However, these collaborations turn out to be fragile and their management very complex. In our literature review, the congruence between the nature of innovations (i.e. their radicalness) and the cooperation practices appears as a potentially powerful explanatory factor of interfirm innovation project’s outcome. Following this hypothesis, we explore, on two case studies of projects subsidized by the Walloon Competitive Clusters program, the way actors innovate and organize their actions. Though they face similar constraints, these projects illustrate diverse configurations, not only as to the nature of innovations but also as to cooperation practices. Besides, the analysis reveals that the criteria used to characterize the nature of innovations do not necessarily form a homogeneous set of factors. Considering these observations, we try to identify the main challenges faced by both projects’ partners. [less ▲]

The aim of this paper is to shed light, in an exploratory manner, on the role of the choices made in terms of governance in reorganisation projects initiated on territories affected by companies ... [more ▼]

The aim of this paper is to shed light, in an exploratory manner, on the role of the choices made in terms of governance in reorganisation projects initiated on territories affected by companies' restructuring. Actor-network theory is used to analyse the dynamics present on three territories concerned by the restructuring of a same company. It allows to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the territorial reorganisation's modes of management and to highlight their decisive influence on the evolution of the projects. [less ▲]